Bill Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank my colleagues. I was actually willing to step down and let the distinguished majority leader go ahead. He is very kind. I would like to point out some critiques. I want it nailed down that I support this package. I think we can improve it, but at the end of the day, if we have not been able to improve it by the amendment process, it is my intention to vote for it because I think it is a major step in the right direction. Over the course of time, we are going to be able to add to the law and improve it so that at the end of the day, perhaps in a year or two down the road, we are going to have a prescription drug benefit under Medicare for senior citizens. This legislation does many things, not the least of which is the most comprehensive attempt at expanding one of our Government's most successful experiments, this Medicare Program. Today, almost 80 percent of our seniors take at least one prescription drug a day and over half of them take an average of four prescription drug medications each day. Prescription drugs are responsible for keeping people out of the hospital and helping them maintain their health. Spending money on medicines not only reduces the suffering of millions but it also reduces their health-care-related costs. Let me give an example. There is a lady named Ms. Rita Salls from Sebring, FL. She takes at least 12 medications each day and sometimes even more than that. Those medicines are what allow her to continue to live on her own, an independent life. Like many of our colleagues, when we first ran for the Senate, we talked to our constituents--and we still do--and we said we were going to try to enact this prescription drug benefit under Medicare. What do many of our seniors without the prescription drug coverage do? They have to skip doses to make their prescriptions last longer or they have to spend less on food. Can you imagine in the year 2003 in the United States of America that there are senior citizens who are having to make a choice between food or their medicine because they do not have enough money? In some cases, they are completely unable to fill a prescription solely based on its cost. The need for this benefit has never been clearer. While this legislation is certainly an exceptional effort to fulfill our promise for a prescription drug benefit, it does fall short in some categories. My first concern is as it relates to the provider of the drug benefit. Given Medicare's mixed experience with Medicare HMOs--what we call Medicare+Choice; it is an HMO created under Medicare-- we have not had too good of an experience with that because those Medicare HMOs have folded up and are cancelling out beneficiaries all across the country, particularly in rural areas such as Montana, and many of the rural counties in my State. How do I know that? Before I came to the Senate, I was the elected State insurance commissioner of Florida and I saw in county after county, as the regulator, where I had to go beg, cajole, and wheedle when a Medicare HMO stopped serving a rural county to get another Medicare HMO to come in and fill that role. Should these companies come in, I still believe there should be the Government's fallback provision in the bill. It is certainly a very important provision. I wish it were in place permanently as the first option a senior could go to, but that amendment from a couple of days ago did not pass. In other words, I believe all seniors should have the option of receiving their drug benefit through Medicare rather than just through the private insurer. I think that ought to be the senior citizen's choice and yet that is not the case with the bill. Another worry I have is how this plan is going to treat low-income seniors. In my State of Florida, over one-third of the seniors have incomes low enough to qualify for the low-income benefit of this legislation. This is especially true in Florida because the State pharmacy assistance plan in the State of Florida provides only a very limited benefit and is only available to a very small fraction of low- income seniors in Florida. This Grassley-Baucus compromise provides premium and deductible assistance to seniors well above what Medicaid is required to do and what my own State is doing, but under the bill, some low-income seniors will not be eligible for the Medicare benefit because the plan insists that they continue to receive their benefit through Medicaid. Furthermore, beneficiaries will be subjected to an asset test in order to qualify for the benefit, which could deter some eligible beneficiaries from seeking the assistance in the first place. Another grave concern I have is the coverage gap faced by the seniors under this legislation. Beneficiaries with drug costs in excess of $4,500 a year will find themselves continuing to pay a premium while not getting any benefit until the catastrophic provision kicks in, which is around $5,700. It is as if we are penalizing the sicker beneficiaries who depend on more prescription drugs. Assistance to seniors should focus on individuals like Mr. and Mrs. Lomax of Longwood, FL. Mr. Lomax is 67 years old. He cannot afford to quit working because he and his wife would not be able to afford their prescription drug costs. So he continues to provide them coverage through his employer, because the cost of his medications add up to over $600 per month. Under this bill, Mr. Lomax would be required to pay over $4,200, over 40 percent of his annual drug costs. Another critique I would make of the bill is it fails to address an issue not only affecting our Nation's seniors but anyone who has to purchase prescription drugs. I have talked to my former chairman of the Finance Committee and now the ranking member, Senator Baucus, about this. We realize these are the hard realities because nothing in the bill today guarantees that when Medicare or private plans on behalf of Medicare purchase their drugs from manufacturers that they get the very lowest possible price. If taxpayers are going to have to face the long- term burden of ensuring a viable prescription drug benefit for years to come, we should make certain the Government uses its purchasing power to the best of its ability. That is a question that no doubt will be answered over the years as this new bill becoming law begins to be added to and perfected over the course of time. In addition to expanding coverage of drugs in Medicare, this legislation does include some very worthy provisions aimed at easing the States' increasing burden of providing care to our Nation's immigrants. Immigrants and Florida, the two so often go hand in hand because of the desirability of coming to this wonderful country of ours. Where do so many of them come? To the shores of the State of Florida. In this bill, by allowing the States the option to cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, States will finally be able to obtain Federal dollars to offset the States' costs for immigrants. Similarly, increases in Federal reimbursement for providers of emergency treatment to undocumented aliens is welcome. Florida ranks fifth among States with the highest population of illegal immigrants. Providing uncompensated care to illegal and legal immigrants is a major and growing problem for many of our hospitals in Florida. This provision in the bill will go a long way in helping to ease that situation. Another major component of this proposal would increase funding to rural health care providers by more than $30 billion over the next 10 years, but I must say I am troubled by the way this bill pays for necessary increases in provider reimbursements by passing along their costs to Medicare's beneficiaries. They are already struggling to pay for their share of the health care costs. Their share of these costs can often exceed 45 percent of the total. So I think it is unconscionable to think that as we ask them to pay an additional $35 per month for drug coverage and an increased deductible we would ask them to pay for things they have not had to pay for in the past such as new deductibles and copayments on such things as outpatient lab services. Furthermore, we are again threatening the ability of some of our sickest beneficiaries to receive the care they so desperately need. While we all agree that the method for payment of anticancer agents should be reformed, reducing the reimbursement from 95 to 85 percent of the average wholesale price without appropriate increases in payments for essential patient services could further jeopardize access to quality cancer care in a physician's office setting. I, along with my colleagues, will do all we can over the course of the next several days to improve this legislation with amendments ensuring that the Government maximizes its purchasing power and ensuring a beneficiary's coverage is stable. They will, hopefully, be accepted. It will strengthen this legislation. This is a starting point. We must also ensure that is a solid foundation for a comprehensive benefit that fulfills our promises to America's seniors.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Montana is ``Merlin the Magician'' to finally be able to craft a package that will get through in a bipartisan fashion with a huge number of votes in this Chamber. And I think if it is appropriate with the ranking member--and I believe parliamentary-wise, it is appropriate--I will lay down a couple of amendments now that can be taken up at a separate time, and then I will discuss them.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 938.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will tell you just very briefly about these amendments, and I want to make comments basically on the underlying bill. I think these amendments are such that it is my understanding that they may be accepted--perhaps even in a managers package. But one of them involves extending the Federal role in the end stage renal disease demonstration project, which is a project that we have in Florida. I will speak about it later. It will stand on its merit. The other is amendment No. 938 to require a GAO study to examine the extent of how concierge care has been expanded in the country and what we need to do about it. I am working with Senator Breaux on this particular amendment. What is happening is we have a Federal health insurance system for senior citizens that is available to all senior citizens if they qualify on the age. Lo and behold, a practice is arising around the country where some physicians are saying: I will no longer serve you unless you pay me a dollar amount per patient per year--in the case of some physicians in Florida, $1,500 per year. At the same time they are cutting the number of patients they see, they are saying: For this $1,500 entrance fee that you pay, we are going to give you specialized treatment, same day appointments, hot towels; you can call us at any time of the night--all of that personalized concierge care for $1,500 a year per patient. But if you do not pay us that, you cannot be my patient, and, oh, by the way, I still want to receive reimbursement from the Federal Government for the reimbursable services I am giving to you, the senior citizen. That was not how Medicare was set up. Medicare was set up for all senior citizens, not just those who can pay $1,500 a year to see the doctor. This concierge care popped up here and in several other States. This amendment is to require a GAO study to examine the extent to which this might ultimately be a destructive force against the Medicare reimbursement system and the entire Medicare system because the logical conclusion of this kind of concierge care is we would have completely two tiers of service within Medicare. We would have those who could pay the $1,500 per year, and, by the way, that is just in one case. There is another case in California where they are having to pay $24,000 per year per patient just to be under the care of that particular doctor. So we would have two tiers under Medicare. We would have the Medicare recipients, the senior citizens, who qualify, and they would pay that money and would go to certain doctors, and the doctors who were not going to charge that, who would be left over, would get all the rest of the Medicare patients who could not afford to pay the fee. That is not the way Medicare was set up, and that is not how Medicare is intended to deliver health care services to senior citizens that are paid for by the Federal Government. Instead of just coming in here and breaking down the door, I took the suggestion of the senior Senator from Louisiana. In this bill, he has a special provision having to do with speciality hospitals, but he first did a GAO study to show the extent to which those speciality hospitals were being utilized. That became the basis for changing the law. That is what I will be doing by offering this amendment No. 938 which we will discuss at a future time. I inquire of the Senator from Montana--I am just getting ready to get into my comments about the bill--does the Senator from Montana know of somebody else who wishes to speak and, if so, can he give me an indication of how long he would like me to speak? I yield to the Senator.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Recognizing that several States, including the State of the distinguished Democratic whip, Nevada, have implemented prescription drug plans of which they were not able to get any insurance company to step forward to offer prescription drugs under that plan because the insurance companies could not make any money, are we likely to see this revolving door the distinguished Senator from South Dakota has talked about, that two companies are supposed to compete and offer prescription drugs to the senior citizens but they do not step forward, and they go back to the backstop, which is the Medicare plan, and then there is the thought they will step forward again but they don't, and then they backstop back to the Medicare prescription drug plan? Does that suggest not only uncertainty but chaos?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would the Democratic leader yield for a question?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would like to ask one more question of the distinguished Democratic leader. At the end of the day, if we are not able to improve the bill with some of these amendments that have been discussed, it is either yea or nay. If we know that this kind of chaos and uncertainty is coming down the road when the legislation kicks in in 2006, is the theory of the Senator from South Dakota that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Therefore, we could clear up that uncertainty, stop that revolving door, if, in fact, we gave seniors the automatic choice they could get their prescription drugs through Medicare, but if they had a better option, a more favorable menu of prescription drugs in the private sector, they could opt for that?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that will close a serious loophole regarding foreign flight student training that was created in the Aviation Security Act of 2001. This amendment has passed the Senate twice on other bills since I first introduced it in the 107th Congress. This amendment is another important step toward fully protecting the United States and all Americans from terrorists who intend to use our aviation system to commit future attacks. We must continue to be vigilant in protecting our Nation. This amendment addresses a deep concern regarding foreign citizens coming to the United States to receive pilot training on all sizes of aircraft. This concern clearly is shared by the administration. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, released an advisory on May 1, 2003 titled ``The Continuing Threat to Aviation'' citing that al-Qaida operatives may ``attempt to use charter or general aviation aircraft to conduct future attacks because of their availability, less stringent protective measures, and destructive potential.'' The advisory continued on to say that ``[c]harter aircraft also may be attractive because terrorists may only need an established line of credit to gain access to an aircraft and because some agencies allow the use of customer pilots.'' Finally, and of greatest concern, the DHS warns that ``[r]eliable information . . . indicated al-Qaida might use experienced non-Arab pilots to rent three to four light aircraft under the guise of flying lessons.'' This threat to our national security is real and cannot be understated. I ask unanimous consent that the Department of Homeland Security advisory be printed in the Record.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Unfortunately, we all have seen what can happen when people come to our country with the specific intent to do us great harm. It has become painfully clear that many of the September 11 hijackers learned to fly the planes they used as deadly weapons at flight schools here in the United States, some in my home State of Florida. Section 113 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which was enacted in the 107th Congress, requires background checks of all foreign flight school applicants seeking training to operate aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or more. While this provision should help prevent September 11 style attacks by U.S. trained pilots using hijacked jets in the future, it does nothing to prevent different types of potential attacks against our domestic security. To rectify this problem, I introduced S. 236 together with Senators Corzine, Enzi, Feinstein, and Thomas earlier this year. Small aircraft can be used by terrorists to attack nuclear facilities, carry explosives, or deliver biological or chemical agents. For example, if a crop duster filled with a combination of fertilizers and explosives were crashed into a filled sporting event stadium thousands of people could be seriously injured or killed. We cannot allow this to happen. We need to ensure that we are not training terrorists to perform these activities. We cannot allow critical warnings to go unheeded. This bill will close an important loophole and answer these critical warnings by extending the background check requirement to all foreign applicants to U.S. flight schools, regardless of the size aircraft they seek to learn to fly. It also transfers the entire security background check program from the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security, specifically to the Transportation Security Administration. It is my expectation that the Transportation Security Administration, which provided excellent advice in the fine tuning of this legislation, will apply a stringent level of background screening to all foreign nationals who seek flight training here in the United States. We cannot allow anyone to slip through the cracks. We cannot aid anyone who intends to do harm to Americans and to our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, there are a lot of States that are quite concerned about this so-called inventory, or so-called survey, to be done with regard to oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf off our respective States. Why are we concerned? In a bipartisan way, we have heard Senators from each of these coastal States stand up in this debate that started last night and has continued through today tell the reasons, and they usually will boil down to two reasons. I will give a third today. The two reasons are usually: No. 1, the harm to our environment if oil is spilled as a result of offshore drilling. In the experiences this country has had, we clearly understand what that does to the coastal environment. There is a second reason that has been articulated in this debate, and it is that it will so devastatingly affect our State economies. In most of our coastal States, the travel and tourism industry is inextricably entwined with the viability and the beauty of our beaches. In the case of Florida, a coastline only exceeded by the coastline of a place such as Alaska in number of miles, we have a $50 billion annual tourism industry. A lot of that is reflective upon the desirability of people to enjoy our beautiful beaches. So, too, in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. And so, too, with the extraordinary environment in New England, especially in places such as Maine. On the gulf coast of the United States, the Gulf of Mexico is generally divided into the eastern gulf, the central gulf, and the western gulf. There are 2,000 oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. All are in the central gulf off of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and in the western gulf off of Texas. Those particular States' populations support offshore oil drilling; on the eastern gulf, Floridians do not. The Senate should listen to the coastal States. That is the first part of the argument. The second part of the argument is, where is the oil and gas? The geology shows it is not in the eastern Gulf of Mexico off the State of Florida; it is where the oil wells are now in the central and western gulf. We did a survey in the year 2000 and we are scheduled to do another survey in the year 2005, 2\1/2\ years from now. What is the rush? That is why we are suspicious. We think it is the inevitable push by the oil interests playing out here, wanting to start drilling for oil and gas. The debate articulated thus far is the environment and our economies. I mentioned a third reason. The third reason is the defense of this country, in the preparation of the defense of this country and the training that takes place off the coast of the United States. The military cannot train with a carrier if there are oil rigs out there. Since the naval training facility at Vieques, Puerto Rico, is being shut down, a lot of that training is now off the east coast of the United States and the gulf coast. Specifically, a lot of that training will occur off the coast of Eglin Air Force Base at Fort Walton Beach, the Pensacola Naval Air Station at Pensacola, and Tyndall Air Force Base at Panama City. We are able to do this because of the advance of technology. You can virtually create the target area desired, although it is in unrestricted airspace over the waters--in this case, the Gulf of Mexico. Can we have that kind of training if there are oil and gas wells out there? The answer is no. The environment, the economy, and the preparation of our military to engage in the defense of this country are three obvious reasons.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the vote is scheduled for 11:15.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to close on the amendment that is sponsored by Senator Graham, and a number of other Senators, including this junior Senator from the State of Florida.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield the floor and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. What do you think about the rest of the Pacific coast States, Oregon and California? What would the people think?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am not a junior Congressman anymore but I am a junior Senator. Although there have been some birthdays between the time I was a junior Senator and a junior Congressman, I still have a lot of fight in me. I think we have a decent shot of winning this amendment and this vote will take place tomorrow. There is no need repeating a number of the things that have been said. Let me summarize, on first glance, section 105 of this bill seems reasonable. Do we know what the resources are so we can prepare an assessment? Upon further reflection, upon reading the language, it becomes unnecessary and unreasonable when you recognize the Secretary of the Interior has conducted an inventory just 2 years ago. On the plan there is going to be an inventory that is going to be conducted in 2005, just 2 years from now. Why should the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of the Interior go about duplicating the efforts that had just been done and were going to be done? We know most of the Outer Continental Shelf is under a moratorium. Almost all of those areas, under this plan, of section 105 of the bill would be required to be reassessed under the moratorium. So I am just not sure. I kind of smell something fishy here. Why does the Congress want to waste taxpayer money on a duplicative inventory of areas off limits to oil and gas exploration? The House of Representatives has already realized the importance of this amendment. They passed it with a voice vote in an overwhelming show of bipartisan support. So if we can pass this amendment of Senator Graham, this issue is over and done with because of an identical provision in the bill that has passed the House. We already know that many coastal States exercise their rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act because oil and gas exploration plans that have been proposed would threaten those States. In their own efforts to control the destiny of their own shores and their own environment, they have exercised their rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act not to have oil drilling. Those who oppose this amendment, when we hear the final debate tomorrow, are going to argue that it is the only section in the Energy bill that addresses the volatility of natural gas prices. But how does it do that? We already know where natural gas is from. We know where it is from the 2000 assessment. We already know the President and the Congress have acted to prevent leasing of oil and gas drilling, so what is the true purpose? What I smell is a kind of fishy smell: what is the true purpose? You have to come to the conclusion it is to roll back the moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. What is the true purpose? It is to weaken the States' rights under the Coastal Zone Management Act. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this Graham amendment and strike this unnecessary language from the Energy bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I have to tell a little story to the Senator from Washington before she leaves. In the middle of the 1980s I was the junior Congressman from the east coast of the State of Florida. There was a Secretary of the Interior named James Watt who was absolutely intent on drilling. They offered for lease off the east coast of the United States leases for sale all the way from North Carolina south to Fort Pierce, FL. Perhaps I was green enough--I didn't know any better--to take him on. I took him on, as a junior Congressman. I was getting absolutely nowhere. We beat it back one year. They left it alone the next year and came back with a new Secretary of the Interior the third year and they were intent they were going to ram through those leases. The only way I was able to beat it was I finally got the Department of Defense and NASA to own up to the fact and to press that on the administration back in the mid-1980s that you cannot be dropping the solid rocket boosters off of the space shuttle with oil rigs down there and you cannot be dropping off the first stage, after it is spent, on the expendable launch vehicles coming out of Cape Canaveral with oil rigs out there. That is the only way we beat it back in the mid-1980s. I thought they were going to leave us alone. Two years ago, when an important appointment was up in the Department of the Interior, I went to the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Norton, and she assured me that in the eastern Gulf of Mexico there would be no attempt at oil drilling for the next 5 years. That was a commitment made to me with regard to an appointment and the Senate's consideration. What is in this bill does not break her commitment, but it clearly starts to imply that what is being done is the intention of drilling. I hope we are going to be able to muster the votes with Senators who do not have coasts, with help from Senators such as the distinguished Senator in the chair, listening to this debate. With their help, we may just have the votes. When Senator Graham and I tried 2 years ago just with regard to the Gulf of Mexico off the State of Florida to keep the moratorium there, we did not get but 35 votes for our amendment, so the amendment did not pass. It was later that I got that commitment from Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. But this is portending something else. We are going to fight. I hope we have the votes.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to support the Graham amendment. I am a cosponsor. Bob Graham and I have been battling on the question of oil and gas drilling off the coast of Florida, and it is very clear to us, as we have waged this battle over the course of the last 25 years in public office, that the people of Florida do not want it for environmental reasons but also for business reasons; that Florida's $50 billion tourism industry in large part is because we have beautiful, unspoiled beaches. I know what the people in my State of Florida want. They do not want oil drilling off their shore. I ask the Senator from Washington what is the thinking of her people in her State of Washington?

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I talked at length with the senior Senator from North Carolina earlier today. Senator Edwards is quite concerned about the oil drilling off of the Outer Banks. The people directly affected are crying out. There are States that do not mind drilling off the coast--the State of Louisiana, the State of Texas. There are about 2,000 wells in the Gulf of Mexico and they are primarily off of Texas and Louisiana, some off of Alabama, some off of Mississippi, all of those States whose Senators do not seem to mind because it must reflect their people's feeling that there be oil drilling. In the Gulf of Mexico, the geology shows that is where the oil and gas is, in the western gulf, in the central gulf, but not in the eastern gulf. The people of Florida simply do not think it is worth the tradeoff of spoiling the environment and spoiling a $50 billion tourism industry to take the risk where the geology shows there is very little likelihood of oil, to take the risk that a well will be hit, that an oilspill will occur. There is another reason. We have tremendous military facilities in the State of Washington. What we are finding is with so many of the military facilities on the gulf coast now that the naval facility on Vieques Island in Puerto Rico is being closed down, some of that training for the U.S. Navy is being shifted to the gulf coast of Florida, not necessarily on the land. Because of computers and virtual training, they can now image what would be the target zone, and it can be out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. That helps in preparation of our Navy for its proper training, but will that Navy be able to train if there are oil rigs in the eastern Gulf of Mexico? The answer is no. I ask the Senator from Washington, is there any similar military activity in the Senator's State? I certainly know there is in California where they are launching from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Is there such a facility?

Mr. NELSON of Florida

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I thank the two leaders of our committee who have been so accommodating and so gracious to work this out. Amendment No. 766

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, this amendment brings symmetry to the bill by our action earlier this morning. Senator Warner had an amendment agreed to which said the Congress should authorize the production of a low-yield nuclear weapon. In other words, the Congress was going to have to step in if we were going to make a major step in the production of a new nuclear weapon from our present policy of years standing and of not producing any new kinds of nuclear weapons. That was agreed to earlier with regard to a low-yield nuclear weapon under the philosophy recognizing that the United States is trying to keep proliferation of nuclear weapons down, and that once you start letting that nuclear genie out of the bottle, it is very hard to reverse. That was the theory upon which the earlier amendment was agreed to. So, too, the amendment I sent to the desk, cosponsored by the two leaders of our committee, will require the Congress to authorize any production of a robust nuclear earth penetrator. A nuclear weapon would have to be modified to go into this new robust earth penetrator. That is a decision reserved to the Congress and its authorization for such a weapon to go from the research stage to the production stage. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 and what this bill does for our national security. I am honored to be the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. I thank Senator Allard, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his leadership and generous spirit of cooperation. This bill accomplishes much that is good for America, and I am proud to have been a part of shaping the direction of our current and future security. The Strategic Forces Subcommittee has had a good year with a number of hearings on the difficult and complex issues that fall within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. With just a few exceptions, the provisions in the bill on the floor today are balanced and enjoy strong bipartisan support. In the space program area, an area of great interest to both Senator Allard and myself, I note our strong support of the additional funds provided for the GPS-3 satellite. The Nation cannot afford to delay the important technological advances that GPS-3 will provide. The Defense Department wanted to delay this program, but this year's budget request was put together long before the war in Iraq. Given the performance of and the demand for the precision provided by GPS in the war and U.S. reliance on GPS generally, the GPS-3 must be accelerated. Hopefully, this bill will get this vital program back on track. The approach taken in the bill on missile defense is balanced. My colleagues on this side of the aisle and I appreciate that this bill addresses a number of our concerns and incorporates some of our recommendations to strengthen our missile defense programs. I fully support the provision in the bill that will provide Congress important information on the funding required to actually procure, not just research, our missile defense systems. This provision, when enacted, will provide Congress and the American people a window into the costs of our missile defense plans, and will also help ensure that we know up front how much funding is required to deploy future missile defense systems. I also am pleased that the bill will restore a national missile defense intercept test in fiscal year 2004. The administration has decided to cancel 9 of 20 previously planned intercept tests for this system. One of the cancelled tests was to have occurred in 2004. This is of concern to me--I believe we need to test systems before we deploy them. Restoration of the test in 2004 will substantially enhance our knowledge of the missile defense system the President has decided to field at the end of 2004. Adding this one test will increase the number of full-up tests of the system between now and the fielding date by 50 percent. The bill also contains a requirement for the Department to report to Congress on why the national missile defense test plan has changed so radically. This is a positive step. Unfortunately, the bill does not urge the administration to restore the other eight cancelled tests, or require the administration to notify Congress if it decides to cancel even more tests. Congress has a modern tradition of using testing--developmental and operational--as a critical element of its constitutional oversight responsibility. We should not abandon this now. The President plans to field a missile defense system in 2004, yet that system is still years from being fully tested and proven. When deployed in 2004 it is not clear how well the system would work if called upon. Only a disciplined, fully funded, and rigorous test program will determine that. During the debate on this bill, I hope we can find a way to restore some of the testing unwisely removed from the program. One of the areas the committee bill does not address is the lack of any yardstick with which to measure the developmental progress of our missile defense programs. Essential management tools, common to any technology program, are not in place for missile defense. With the exception of the Patriot PAC-3 program, developed mostly under President Clinton, no other missile defense programs have any established standards by which to measure their progress in development. Are we ahead or behind schedule? Are we over, at, or under budget? Is the technology ready, or is there more to learn? How can Congress effectively meet our constitutional duty in oversight of this extremely complex and expensive national effort if we do not have an objective, scientifically based yardstick to measure our progress? Americans know that before you buy a car, you would like to know its fuel economy, power, load capacities, and whether it has a good maintenance record. Buying a major weapon system is not different--no matter how complex. Before the Department of Defense or Congress buys a multibillion-dollar system, we, and the American people, should want to know how well it should and does perform. For a missile defense program, this means how reliably interceptors will launch, how many missiles it should be able to shoot down, how many decoys it can deal with, and so on. The administration has no such standards for missile defense. At this moment, neither Congress nor the American people know what we are getting for our money in missile defense. Even for the ``limited'' system the administration plans to field in 2004, there is no description of and commitment to the types of missiles it must or will defend against, or how many decoys it can handle. I hope we can find some way to develop some performance standards for our missile defense program. In the area of signals intelligence, I fully support the funding increases for signals intelligence aircraft. These assets have played a disproportionately large role in the war on terrorism and continue to be heavily utilized. It is essential that we provide the critical funding to sustain and improve these important aircraft. Unmanned aerial vehicles have played a remarkable role in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in the greater war on terrorism. This is one reason that a number of Senators from both sides of the aisle were disappointed with the Navy's decision not to buy the new Fire Scout unmanned helicopters. The Fire Scout has performed well during its development and holds significant promise for the future. I fully support the additional $40 million provided for Fire Scout that should allow production to start in 2004. I also note my support on the provision that will focus the attention of the National Nuclear Security Administration's efforts to address the maintenance backlog at its facilities. The Department of Energy, DOE, has been trapped in a death spiral of deferring maintenance for 20 years. We all hope that a provision in this bill brings a new dedication to facilities management that ends the spiral. Finally, one additional area in the bill that troubles me, and many of our colleagues, is its approach to nuclear weapons. It appears that the Bush administration is making a significant change in U.S. nuclear weapons policy by blurring the distinction between nuclear and nonnuclear weapons. This blurring appears to be leading to a new and unsettling notion of usable nuclear weapons, a possible resumption of nuclear weapons testing, and an overall approach that would lend renewed credibility and legitimacy to nuclear weapons at levels well below their traditional strategic deterrence role. This bill supports those goals. It is important that the United States maintain a strong nuclear deterrent. But it is equally important for the United States to maintain the longstanding policy that nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort--not just another weapon. Today the United States sits firmly atop the moral high ground when it comes to the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Our leadership and commitment to nonproliferation is undisputed. Just over the last few years, the United States has successfully assisted the third and fourth largest nuclear weapons states, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, to be signatories of the NPT as nonnuclear weapons states. The United States is working hard to reduce tensions and nuclear risks between Pakistan and India. At the same time, we are locked in a tough strategic challenge over nuclear weapons in North Korea. With strong leadership we can continue making progress against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. But we must continue to lead by example. But we will fail if our leadership suggests to the world that we have accepted the legitimacy of nuclear weapons as a realistic tactical option. I acknowledge that we have legitimate scientific interests in the reliability and effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal and new technologies that may improve safety or reduce costs. Members tend to agree on these research interests. But Members, and the American people, tend to divide over committing the Nation to programs that will develop and deploy new weapons for purposes other than nuclear deterrence. We are entering dangerous territory here and must move forward carefully, mindful of our global leadership, without illusions of those threats that are most likely and most dangerous, and without ideological blinders. I will join with several of my colleagues later in a series of amendments that will, if adopted, address some of these concerns. The debate that lies ahead will be important to this bill and our national security. Mr. President, my thanks again to Senator Allard for his leadership of our subcommittee this year, and to Senators Warner and Levin for their leadership of the full committee. I look forward to the work we will do together as we move this important bill to final passage.